Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

52. Even the language of the clauses (a) and (b) below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act requires the Collector to establish the fact that the claimant, as contemplated by clause (a), was present or represented before him at the time when the award was made, and in other cases covered by clause (b), that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award and that the reference was not preferred within a period of six weeks or six months, as the case may be, from the date of such knowledge. The Collector being in custody of the entire record, it is for him to plead and prove that the reference preferred under Section 18 of the said Act was barred by the law of limitation. It is, therefore, for the State, acting through the Collector, to discharge its burden if it wanted to deny a fundamental right to the claimant to get the market value of the land acquired determined by the Court, by seeking reference under Section 18 of the said Act.

53. It is not expected from the claimant to plead and prove the negative facts that he was not present or was not represented before the Collector when the award was made, as contemplated by clause (a) below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, or any other cases covered by clause (b) therein, that he was not having the actual or constructed knowledge of the essential contents of the award so as to prefer a reference under Section 18 of the said Act either within a period of six weeks or within a period of six months, as the case may be. No doubt, that it would be advisable for the claimant to make such pleading in the reference petition under Section 18 of the said Act, but absence of such pleading would not be enough to deprive the claimant of a right to seek a reference for compensation at a market value of the land under acquisition. The question No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

6] In view of the aforesaid law laid down the basic facts which required to be pleaded are found in the application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act, so as to bring the reference within a period of limitation in terms of Section 18(2) of the said Act. The burden is upon the Collector, who is the custodian of the record to come forward with the case that the reference preferred was barred by the law of limitation and in the absence of any such pleading and proof on the part of the Collector, the claimant is not expected to plead and prove the negative facts that he was not present or was not represented before the Collector when the award was made or that he was not having the actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of award so as to prefer a reference under Section 18 of the said Act either within a period of six weeks or within a period of six months, as the case may be.